#1 (permalink) Tue Jun 15, 2010 16:34 pm Some people believe that there should be fixed punishments for each type of crime

Some people believe that there should be fixed punishments for each type of crime. Others, however, argue that the circumstances of an individual crime, and the motivation for committing it, should always be taken into account when deciding on the punishment.

In the present age, the issue of crimes is increasingly disturbing. But in the meantime, whether taking into account the criminal circumstances and the motivation has sparked much debate. Some people assert that there should be fixed penalties for each type of crime while many others argue that the circumstances of an individual crime, and the motivation for committing it, should invariably be regarded when deciding on the punishment. Personally, I am in favor of the latter view.

Convincing arguments can be made that it is indispensable basis that regarding the criminal surroundings and the motivation when determining on the penalty. To start with, when a person is in a dangerous circumstance, he or she might exert some reasonless and impulsive behaviors. Therefore, for these crimes, which are passive operations, should be lenient treated lesser punishments. Moreover, if a ‘criminal’ makes some behaviors breaking the law for protecting others or self-protection, this person also is same as a victim. For instance, if a female hurts or kills a guy who is raping her, at the same time she also is suffering from the trauma. Consequently, this behavior of self-protection ought to be regarded as innocence.

Admittedly, law enforcement agencies execute stringent punishments for each type of crime that is powerful guarantee for people’s daily lives and social stability. The reason of this is that severe penalties as a deterrent to crimes can plunge the crime rate. Obviously, due to fearing punishments, people have to think over the consequence of what they are going to engage in. Even so, for those law-abiding citizens are confronted with rampant offenders who disregard laws, they fail to effectively protect themselves or other people. For instance, people are restricted to deter a crime for they are worried about violating the law.

In summary, I would concede that stringent punishments can prevent the criminal tendency. Despite that, taking into account the crime circumstances and the motivation is essential to punishments, to large extent. Overall, I am convinced that the justified law can more effectively maintain the social stability and substantially guide citizens to abide by the law.

#2 (permalink) Tue Jun 15, 2010 20:00 pm Some people believe that there should be fixed punishments for each type of c

Some people believe that there should be fixed punishments for each type of crime. Others, however, argue that the circumstances of an individual crime, and the motivation for committing it, should always be taken into account when deciding on the punishment.

In the present age, the issue of crimes is increasingly disturbing. But in the meantime, whether taking into account the criminal circumstances and the motivation has sparked much debate. Some people assert that there should be fixed penalties for each type of crime(,) while many others argue that the circumstances of an individual crime, and the motivation for committing it, should invariably be regarded when deciding on the punishment. Personally, I am in favor of the latter view.

Convincing arguments can be made that it is AN indispensable basis that regarding the criminal surroundings and the motivation when /determining/DELIBERATING/DECIDING/ on the penalty. To start with, when a person is in a dangerous circumstance, he or she might exert some /reasonless/UNREASONABLE/IRRATIONAL/SENSELESS/ and impulsive behaviors. Therefore, for these crimes, which are passive operations, THERE should be MORE lenient treated lesser punishments. Moreover, if a ‘criminal’ makes some behaviors breaking the law for /BY/IN/protecting others or self-protection, this person also is THE same as a victim. For instance, if a female hurts or kills a guy who is raping her, at the same time she also is suffering from the trauma. Consequently, this behavior of self-protection ought to be regarded as innocence.

Admittedly, law enforcement agencies execute stringent punishments for each type of crime(.) That IN ITSELF is A powerful guarantee for people’s daily lives and social stability. The reason FOR this is that severe penalties as a deterrent to crimes can /plunge/DECIMATE/REDUCE/ the crime rate. Obviously, due to fearing punishments, people have to think over the consequence of what they are going to engage in. Even so, for those law-abiding citizens WHO are confronted with rampant offenders who disregard laws, they fail to effectively protect themselves or other people. For instance, people are restricted to deter a crime for they are worried about violating the law THEMSELVES.

In summary, I would concede that stringent punishments can prevent the criminal tendency. Despite that, taking into account the crime circumstances and the motivation is essential to punishments, to large extent. Overall, I am convinced that the justified law can more effectively maintain the social stability and substantially guide citizens to abide by the law.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::A good sensible essay Sean.